PREM CHAND Vs. RUP CHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications, one under Sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and another under Sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for condonation of delay in re-filing the same appeal after removal of objections, have been moved by the applicant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'applicant').

(2.) The appellant on 20.4.1998 presented an appeal against the order dated 31.10.1997. passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the suit of the applicant under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Registry, inter alia, raised the objections that (i) the memo of appeal was not stamped; (ii) the copy of impugned order was not properly stamped and (iii) the appeal was time-barred and returned we appeal to the applicant pursuant to the approval dated 13.5.1998 accorded by the Deputy Registrar (judicial) to meet the aforesaid objections within a period of one week. The applicant instead of removing/meeting the objections within the prescribed time limit, refiled the appeal along with the aforesaid applications on 26.6.1999, when it was found that the memorandum of appeal was insufficiency stamped. The objection about the appeal being insufficiency stamped was finally approved by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) on 9.7.1999, and the applicant was given a week's time to meet the objections. the appeal, therefore, was re-filed on 14.9.1999.

(3.) The grounds for condonation, of delay in filing the appeal as averred in the application are that the applicant who is an old man, was at the relevant time confined to bed and not in a position to move and the local lawyer told him that limitation to file the appeal was 90 days. The delay in re-filling the appeal is sought to the explained on the grounds of confinement of the applicant to bed, his inability to come to Shimla repeatedly and that one Vinay Kumar was authorised to hand over the amount required for purchase of court-fee on 5.5.1999.